Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology

Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

doi:10.37190/arc260105

Abstract

For millennia, humans have been closely connected to nature. The progress of industrialization has significantly limited this connection. Biophilic design is a response to the effort to reintegrate nature into everyday life. The aim of this article is to assess the presence and extent of selected biophilic patterns within the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology. The adopted research methods included a literature review, field observation, and an analysis of the occurrence of 14 biophilic patterns at selected campus locations. Data, in the form of ratings assigned to each point, were collected through an online survey form. The results of the study are presented as maps of the Central Campus, with color-coded markings corresponding to the collected evaluations. The article concludes with recommendations for the future development of the campus in line with the principles of biophilia.

2026

1(85)

Dominika Kumorek*, Przemysław Kiełb**

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence

on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology

DOI: 10.37190/arc260105

Published in open access. CC BY-NC license.

Abstract

For millennia, humans have been closely connected to nature. The progress of industrialization has significantly limited this connection. Bio phi-

lic design is a response to the effort to reintegrate nature into everyday life. The aim of this article is to assess the presence and extent of selected

biophilic patterns within the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology. The adopted research methods included a literature

review,

field observation, and an analysis of the occurrence of 14 biophilic patterns at selected campus locations. Data, in the form of ratings assigned to each

point, were collected through an online survey form. The results of the study are presented as maps of the Central Campus, with color-coded

markings

corresponding to the collected evaluations. The article concludes with recommendations for the future development of the campus in line with the

principles of biophilia.

Key words: biophilia, biophilic design, 14 patterns, academic campus, Warsaw University of Technology

Introduction

What is biophilia?

For millennia, humans were inextricably linked with na-

ture. It dictated the rhythm of daily and annual life, agricul-

tural practices, seasonal activities, and many other aspects

of human existence. However, the last centuries of indus-

trialization have eectively limited our connection with the

natural world. Before the Industrial Revolution, the vast

majority of people lived in rural areas and, by necessity,

spent much of their time in natural surroundings. The Amer-

ican landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted argued as

early as 1865 that […] the enjoyment of scenery employs the

mind without fatigue and yet exercises it, tranquilizes it and

yet enlivens it; and thus, through the inuence of the mind

over the body, gives the eect of refreshing rest and rein-

vigoration to the whole system (Olmsted 1990, 504). This

tendency stems from the human inclination to seek a con-

nection with nature. Such an innate attachment to life or liv-

ing systems eventually came to be known as biophilia. The

term was rst dened by the German psychoanalyst Erich

Fromm, who in 1973 wrote that it is […] the passionate love

of life and of all that is alive; it is the wish to further growth,

whether in a person, a plant, an idea, or a social group

(1973, 365). The concept was subsequently popularized by

the biologist Edward O. Wilson. In his book Biophilia, he

dened the phenomenon as: […] innate tendency to focus

on life and lifelike processes (1984, 1) and put forward the

hypothesis that this relationship is not merely physiologi-

cal but has a genetic basis. This hypothesis assumes that

humans possess an inherited need to connect with nature

and other biotic forms due to their evolutionary dependence

on them, rooted in the fundamental drive for survival as

well as personal fulllment.

Biophilic design

The theoretical foundations of biophilic design were

de ve loped in the 1990s by Stephen Kellert, a professor of

* ORCID: 0009-0000-3477-5558. Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw

University of Technology Doctoral School, Poland, e-mail: dominika.

kumorek.dokt@pw.edu.pl

** ORCID: 0009-0000-0965-8528. Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw

University of Technology Doctoral School, Poland.

56 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

social ecology. In his subsequent publications, he tried to

translate theory into the foundations for the practical appli-

cation of biophilia (Kellert, Wilson 1993; Kellert 1997;

2008; 2018; Kellert et al. 2008). To this end, he dened the

principles of biophilic design as having two fundamental

dimensions. The rst is the organic or naturalistic dimen-

sion, dened as shapes and forms within the built environ-

ment that reect the innate human anity for nature in the

following ways:

– direct – unstructured contact with elements of the nat-

ural environment, such as daylight, plants, animals, natural

habitats, and ecosystems;

– indirect – contact with nature that requires ongoing

human intervention to survive, e.g., a potted plant, a foun-

tain, or an aquarium;

– symbolical – not requiring actual contact with nature,

e.g., a painting, photograph, etc.

The second dimension concerns buildings and land-

scapes

that connect with the culture and ecology of a given

place or geographic area. It encompasses what has been

termed the “spirit of place” (genius loci), that is, the way in

which […] buildings and landscapes of meaning to people

become integral to their individual and collective identities,

metaphorically transforming inanimate matter into some-

thing that feels lifelike and often sustains life (Kellert et al.

2008, 6). Based on these fundamental dimensions, Kellert

further identied six elements of biophilic design: environ-

mental features, natural shapes and forms, natural patterns

and processes, light and space, place-based relationships,

and evolved human–nature relationships. These were sub-

sequently elaborated into more than 70 attributes of bio-

philic design. However, the foundations outlined by Kellert

for designers were largely intuitive. He did not dene spe-

cic measurments, characteristics, or other parameters that

would clearly indicate guidelines for implementation in

design. Nor did he present empirical evidence justifying the

validity of his assumptions. Nevertheless, the health-pro-

moting eects of contact with nature had already been

conrmed at that time, among others through the ground-

breaking study by Roger Ulrich, which compared recovery

indicators among patients with access to a view of nature

and those without such access (Ulrich 1983).

Over time, biophilic design – albeit still largely intuitive-

ly – began to be implemented dynamically in new projects.

We weren’t trying to ride the green wave, we were driving

that wave […] (mcdonoughpartners.com), stated Ed Nagel-

kirk from the American company Herman Miller, whose

manufacturing facility designed by William McDonough +

Partners in the 1990s was one of the rst projects conrming

the validity of these assumptions. The experiment conducted

there linked mechanisms of increased productivity with con-

necting building users to nature (Heerwagen, Hase 2001).

Since then, scientists and designers have continued to work

on dening those aspects that have the greatest impact on

our satisfaction with the built environment. In the last dec-

ade, there has been a steady increase in studies at the inter-

section of neuroscience and architecture, both in research

and in practice (Cama 2009; McCollough 2009; Bowler et

al. 2010; Annerstedt, Währborg 2011; Marcus, Sachs 2014;

Frumkin 2001; Ulrich et al. 2008; Gillis, Gatersleben 2015).

Design patterns – search criteria

One of the key contributions to the development of design

patterns is the report prepared by William Browning, Cathe-

rine Ryan, and Joseph Clancy (Browning et al. 2014). In this

work, the authors move from research on human respons-

es to biophilic factors toward practical design applications.

They present biophilic design in the context of the history

of architecture, health sciences, and contemporary architec-

tural practice, and also briey address key issues related to

its implementation. The report concludes with 14 patterns

of biophilic design, supported by empirical evidence and

theoretical studies derived from extensive interdisciplinary

research. The authors focus on the psychological, physiolog-

ical, and cognitive benets resulting from the application of

individual patterns. The use of the term “patterns” is justied

by the explanation oered by the architect and theorist Chris-

topher Alexander, who stated that patterns […] describes

a problem which occurs over and over again in our environ-

ment, and then describes the core of the solution to that prob-

lem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million

times over, without ever doing it the same way twice (Alex-

ander et al. 1977, 10). Browning, Ryan, and Clancy focus

on known, suggested, or theorized patterns of nature that

can be applied across dierent sectors and scales in order to

mitigate common stressors or enhance other selected charac-

teristics. They divide biophilic design into three categories:

Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues, and Nature of the

Space. These are further specied through 14 patterns (7 for

Nature in the Space, 3 for Natural Analogues, and 4 for

Nature of the Space), illustrating their usefulness in support-

ing three functions: stress reduction, enhancement of cogni-

tive performance, and improvement of emotions, mood, and

the overall condition of the human body. The authors outline

what may be described as degrees of proven eectiveness,

through which they scale the extent to which a given pattern

has been scientically conrmed by rigorous empirical data.

The better documented the health-promoting eects of a giv-

en attribute (in terms of the quantity and quality of availa-

ble peer-reviewed evidence), the more points it received on

a unit scale (0–3), and thus the greater its impact. Although

some of the presented patterns received a score of zero, the

researchers emphasize that […] the anecdotal information is

adequate for hypothesizing its potential impact and impor-

tance as a unique pattern (Browning et al. 2014, 22).

Moreover, Browning, Ryan, and Clancy provided de -

tailed descriptions of each pattern, emphasizing the relation-

ships between them, the ways in which they are experi-

enced, their origins, and approaches to working with them

in design. More importantly, from the perspective of the

research presented in this article, they also presented exam-

ples of built projects employing individual patterns, as well

as spatial or experiential elements – either occurring natu-

rally or simulated – that determine the identication of pat-

terns within a given space. These elements are particularly

useful in the context of analyzing the scale and locations of

biophilic components on the Central Campus of the Warsaw

University of Technology.

Nature in the Space refers to the presence of natural ele-

ments within a given environment, both in physical form

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology 57

– plants, water, and animals – and in ephemeral forms

– wind, sounds, scents, and other less tangible natural phe-

nomena. Their material representation may include potted

plants, ower beds, bird feeders, buttery houses, water bod-

ies, fountains, aquaria, courtyard gardens, as well as green

walls or roofs, among others. Creating meaningful and di -

rect interactions with these elements – through their diver-

sity, movement, and multisensory engagement – makes it

possible to achieve the greatest benets associated with

Nature in the Space (Browning et al. 2014). This category

includes seven biophilic design patterns:

1. Visual Connection with Nature – a view to elements of

nature, living systems, and natural processes.

2. Non-Visual Connection with Nature – auditory, haptic,

olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate

and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural

processes.

3. Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli – stochastic and ephe-

meral connections with nature that may be analyzed statis-

tically but may not be predicted precisely.

4. Thermal & Airow Variability – subtle changes in air

temperature, relative humidity, airow across the skin, and

surface temperatures that mimic natural environments.

5. Presence of Water – a condition that enhances the

experience of a place through the seeing, hearing or touch-

ing of water.

6. Dynamic & Diuse Light – leveraging varying inten-

sities of light and shadow that change over time to create

conditions that occur in nature.

7. Connection with Natural Systems – awareness of na -

tu ral processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes

cha racteristic of a healthy ecosystem (Browning et al.

2014, 9).

Natural Analogues refer to organic, non-living, and in -

di rect associations with and representations of nature, ex -

pressed through objects, materials, colors, shapes, se quences,

and patterns found in nature, and manifested in the built

environment as artworks, ornaments, furniture, decorations,

and textiles. Imitating organic forms and natural materials

provides a substitute for direct connections with nature. The

strongest experience of Natural Analogues can be achieved

by providing a richness of information in an organized – and

sometimes evolving – manner. This category includes three

biophilic design patterns:

8. Biomorphic Forms & Patterns – symbolic references

to contoured, patterned, textured, or numerical arrange-

ments that persist in nature.

9. Material Connection with Nature – materials and ele-

ments from nature that, through minimal processing, reect

the local ecology or geology and create a distinct sense of

place.

10. Complexity and Order – rich sensory information

that adheres to a spatial hierarchy similar to those encoun-

tered in nature (Browning et al. 2014, 10).

Nature of the Space refers to spatial congurations found

in the natural environment. This includes both the innate

and learned human desire to perceive surroundings beyond

one’s immediate range, as well as a fascination with what

is potentially dangerous or unknown – such as obscured

views and the moments of discovery associated with them

– while still incorporating a trusted element that ensures

safety. A meaningful experience of the Nature of Space is

achieved by creating intentional and engaging spatial solu-

tions combined with patterns of Nature in the Space and

Natural Analogues. This category includes four biophilic

design patterns:

11. Perspective – an unimpeded view over a distance, for

surveillance and planning.

12. Refuge – a place for withdrawal from environmental

conditions or the main ow of activity, in which the individ-

ual is protected from behind and overhead.

13. Mysery – the promise of more information, achieved

through partially obscured views or other sensory devices

that entice the individual to travel deeper into the environ-

ment.

14. Risk/Peril – an identiable threat coupled with a reli-

able safeguard (Browning et al. 2014, 10).

State of research

For the purposes of this article, an analysis of scientic

literature was conducted on studies concerning biophilic

solutions in higher education institutions, as well as in

classrooms of upper secondary schools representing a group

comparable in age and stress exposure to university stu-

dents. Due to the lack of prior comprehensive studies, the

analysis focuses on publications from 2019 to 2024. Many

of the available studies report experimental research com-

paring students’ perceptions of two learning environments:

biophilic and non-biophilic. These comparative studies can

be divided into those in which environments were physi-

cally arranged for the duration of the experiment (Burton

2022) and those in which a simulated biophilic space was

created using Virtual Reality (VR) tools (Mahrous et al.

2022; 2023). The primary focus of such studies is students’

perceptions, levels of satisfaction, and cognitive perfor-

mance. Parameters were assessed using surveys and inter-

views with numerical and descriptive scales (Burton 2022),

focus groups (Peters, D’Penna 2020), as well as psycholog-

ical and functional tests conducted before and after classes

(Mahrous et al. 2022; 2023). Using these methods, a study

conducted in a secondary school in Baltimore, USA, demon-

strated that students using a biophilic classroom achieved

better results than those in a control classroom (Determan

et al. 2019). Moreover, the average increase in monthly

test scores over three months for students in the biophilic

classroom was more than three times higher than for those

in the control classroom (Determan et al. 2019). The stud-

ies also indicated relationships between specic biophilic

attributes and student preferences (Mahrous et al. 2022),

showing that the greatest impact on performance improve-

ment in academic design studios comes from [...] lighting

and shading, plantation, naturally inspired color [...] and

daylighting (Mahrous et al. 2022, 11). In terms of satisfac-

tion, the most inuential factors were natural lighting, the

presence of greenery, large windows, indirect contact with

nature, and natural nishing materials, increasing it by 78%,

76%, 63%, 66%, and 51%, respectively (Mahrous et al.

2023). The most frequently highlighted advantage of bio-

philic design in academic set

tings is stress reduction. This is

58 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

rangement of outdoor learning and recreational spaces. In

educational areas, vertical natural elements were desira-

ble, whereas in recreational spaces, the key features were

shade-providing trees and benches. Additionally, winding

sensory paths and colorful vegetation were shown to sup-

port student community engagement, promoting interac-

tion and social integration (Hami, Abdi 2019). At the same

time, prior studies indicate that students have limited – but

growing – awareness of the concept of biophilia. They

understand it primarily as the human need for contact with

nature and the harmonious integration of natural elements

into urban spaces. They are aware of the necessity for pub-

lic participation in environmental protection and recognize

the importance of education in fostering pro-ecological

attitudes (Shin, Seol 2020). However, a thorough review of

the literature revealed a lack of studies specically address-

ing the knowledge, preferences, and impact of biophilic

solutions on teachers and academic sta.

Methods

The study was conducted to analyze the presence, scale,

and spatial distribution of biophilic elements on the Central

Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology. The ter-

ritorial scope of the research encompassed publicly acces-

sible outdoor spaces. The existing campus layout, including

the distribution of low and high vegetation as well as the

functional zoning of the area, is presented in Figure 1.

The study was conducted in January and February 2025

(winter semester). To ensure reliable results, each day of

data collection was selected to have similar weather condi-

tions. Meteorological data for January and February were

analyzed, and the following criteria were established:

– general conditions: moderate cloud cover;

– air temperature: 0–5°C,

– precipitation: none,

– wind speed: 1–5 m/s,

– wind direction: stable, without sudden changes,

– visibility: very good, no fog.

Data collection was conducted between 10:00 a.m. and

3:00 p.m., corresponding to peak campus activity. For the

eld study, observation and analysis of the presence and

scale of the 14 biophilic design patterns were performed.

The assessment was carried out at pre-selected eld points

using a prepared data recording form. Field points were

determined by overlaying a 20 × 20 m grid on a map of the

campus, positioned so that the grid nodes covered as many

publicly accessible outdoor spaces as possible (Fig. 2).

From preliminary spacing proposals, this grid width was

chosen to generate a sucient number of points for accurate

analysis while avoiding unnecessary data multiplication.

This resulted in 152 survey points. During the study, 14 of

the 152 points were excluded from the assessment due to

lack of access, caused by ongoing construction work, entry

restrictions, or encountering closed areas. Consequently,

138 eld points were analyzed.

Due to the large volume of potential data and the resulting

need to optimize data collection time, the survey form was

created using a Google Workspace tool – Google Forms. It

consisted of a set of questions aimed at both identifying the

particularly signicant given that, globally, the prevalence

of depression among students often exceeds that of the

general population (Peters, D’Penna 2020). Students face

stress stemming from academic demands, nancial dicul-

ties, family situations, and general uncertainty (Mahrous et

al. 2022). Enhancing the health-promoting qualities of the

environment through the introduction of biophilic attrib-

utes helps students reduce stress and focus better on their

studies (Peters, D’Penna 2020).

Analysis of publications on biophilic preferences in out-

door spaces has revealed a clear preference for environ-

ments that are interesting and non-monotonous. Diversity

in forms translates into a strong sense of comfort and attrac-

tiveness. Previous research consistently shows a preference

for natural environments over urbanized spaces (Dosen,

Ostwald 2016). Studies conrmed the preference for ele-

ments such as vegetation, seating areas, and water features.

Student research also highlighted a strong liking for open

spaces with lawns, while paved surfaces were considered

the least attractive element (Hami, Abdi 2019). Preferred

na tural materials included wood and stone, with an empha-

sis on the importance of using local materials and styles

as elements that foster a sense of place (Peters, D’Penna

2020). Diverse preferences were also observed for the ar -

Fig. 1. Location of high greenery within the Central Campus

of the Warsaw University of Technology: A – Main Building;

B – Physics Building; C – Chemistry Building; D – Mechanics

Building and The Old Boiler House; E – Environmental Engineering

Building; F – residential buildings; G – New Drawing Office Building;

H – Aerodynamics Building; I – Aeronautics Building;

J – New Aeronautics Building; K – Electrical Engineering Building;

L – Chemical Technology Building; M – Mathematics Building;

▲ – open entrance gates; ▲ – closed entrance gates; ● – fountain

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb based on data provided by the

Environmental Protection Department, Office of the City of Warsaw)

Il. 1. Lokalizacja zieleni wysokiej na terenie Kampusu Centralnego

Politechniki Warszawskiej: A – gmach główny; B – gmach fizyki;

C – gmach chemii; D – gmach mechaniki i starej kotłowni;

E – gmach inżynierii środowiska; F – budynki mieszkalne; G – gmach

nowej kreślarni; H – gmach aerodynamiki; I – gmach lotniczy;

J – gmach lotniczy nowy; K – gmach elektrotechniki; L – gmach

technologii chemicznej; M – gmach matematyki; ▲ – bramy

wjazdowe czynne; ▲ – bramy wjazdowe nieczynne; ● – fontanna

(oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb na podstawie danych udostępnionych

przez Biuro Ochrony Środowiska Urzędu Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy)

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology 59

presence of and assessing the intensity of the 14 biophilic

patterns at each eld point. The evaluation used a semantic

scale with the following values and descriptions:

0 – absence of the pattern and no impact,

1 – presence with very weak impact,

2 – presence with weak impact,

3 – presence with moderate impact,

4 – presence with strong impact,

5 – presence with very strong impact.

Each survey response was assigned the number of the

corresponding eld point, according to the previously de -

scribed grid. The criteria for assessment were based on the

work of Browning et al. (2014), which provided guidance

on what should be considered a manifestation of a given

pattern. A detailed analysis of the implementation of pat-

terns – which were often incidental or based solely on the

researchers’ impressions – was not the focus of this article.

The respondents for the survey were exclusively the authors

of this publication. Selected biophilic elements were photo-

graphed to validate the authors’ assessments and are present-

ed in Figure 3.

Results

The results of the study are presented as a set of campus

maps with color-coded markings (Fig. 4). The colors cor-

respond to the ratings of individual biophilic patterns (1 to

14) at the nodes of the initially established grid. The pres-

entation of results also includes a map showing the cumu-

lative assessment of the degree of biophilia at the surveyed

locations, using a dierent color scheme for clarity (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3. Compilation of photographs of selected biophilic elements: 1 – biophilic forms and patterns, 2 – perspective, 3 – refuge,

4 – risk/danger, 5 – mystery (photo by D. Kumorek)

Il. 3. Zestawienie fotografii wybranych elementów biofilnych: 1 – formy i wzory biomorficzne, 2 – perspektywa, 3 – schronienie,

4 – ryzyko/niebezpieczeństwo, 5 – tajemnica (fot. D. Kumorek)

The analysis of the presence and impact of the 14 bio-

philic design patterns on the Central Campus of the Warsaw

University of Technology revealed signicant variation

both in their spatial distribution and in the intensity of their

eects.

The patterns with the greatest representation belonged

to the Nature in the Space category, particularly Visual

Fig. 2. Map of the Central Campus of the Warsaw University

of Technology showing the locations of field points

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Il. 2. Mapa Kampusu Centralnego Politechniki Warszawskiej

z lokalizacją punktów terenowych (oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

60 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

Fig. 4. Compilation of maps of the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology with color-coded markings

corresponding to the ratings of individual biophilic patterns (1–14) at the surveyed field points

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb based on data provided by the Environmental Protection Department, Office of the City of Warsaw)

Il. 4. Zestawienie map Kampusu Centralnego Politechniki Warszawskiej z oznaczeniami kolorystycznymi

odpowiadającymi ocenom poszczególnych wzorców biofilnych (1–14) w badanych punktach węzłowych

(oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb na podstawie danych udostępnionych przez Biuro Ochrony Środowiska Urzędu Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy)

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology 61

the subject of future research, as the knowledge of other

campus users regarding biophilia was not addressed in the

present article.

In future studies, it would be valuable to involve a broader

group of respondents – including students, academic sta,

and administrative personnel – to better reect the diverse

experiences of campus users. Another limitation was the

inaccessibility of certain survey points due to ongoing ren-

ovation works, which prevented a complete recording of

the existing conditions.

Future research should focus on several directions of

development. It would be important to extend the analysis

to the interiors of educational and administrative buildings,

where biophilic attributes play an equally signicant role,

particularly in the context of stress reduction and cognitive

performance enhancement. The use of surveys, qualitative

interviews, or psychological experiments could be consid-

ered to evaluate users’ subjective experiences in compari-

son with the results of eld observations.

This article presented the results of a spatial analysis,

which provides a foundation for further empirical studies.

An additional promising direction for future research could

be a comparative study of the Warsaw University of Tech-

nology campus with other academic campuses in Poland

and abroad. Such a comparison would situate the ndings

within a broader context and allow verication of the uni-

versality of the proposed recommendations.

Conclusions

Based on the presented results and the reviewed liter-

ature, conclusions were formulated in the form of design

recommendations to support the development of the Cen-

tral Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology in

accordance with the principles of biophilia.

The recommendations were classied into two catego-

ries: general recommendations, which include spatially

non-specic, universal guidelines, and detailed recommen-

dations, which outline stages for implementing potential

corrective measures in the areas of the campus with the

most unfavorable biophilic conditions.

Connection with Nature (pattern 1), Connection with Nat

ural Systems (pattern 7), and Dynamic and Diuse Light

(pattern 6). These patterns are mainly present in the central

part of the campus, among the greenery surrounding the

Physics building and along pedestrian routes traversing the

more open areas of the campus. In the center, due to the

fountain located there, an increased presence of Water (pat-

tern 5) was also observed. Moving toward the periphery of

the study area, an increase in the impact of Non-Rhythmic

Sensory Stimuli (pattern 3) can be noted.

Patterns from the Natural Analogues group were much

less represented. In particular, Biomorphic Forms and Pat-

terns (pattern 8) and Material Connection with Nature (pat-

tern 9) appeared only sporadically with high values, while

in most cases they exhibited a low degree of impact. They

were mainly present as incidental decorations or architec-

tural details lacking coherence and systematization. A con-

sistent material narrative referencing the local ecology or

geology was also absent. The lack of rhythmic façades and

the diversity of architectural styles was reected in the very

low values for Complexity and Order (pattern 10).

Elements assigned to the Nature of the Space category,

such as Prospect (pattern 11), Refuge (pattern 12), Mystery

(pattern 13), and Risk/Peril (pattern 14), appeared only

incidentally, mainly in relation to the existing spatial layout

(e.g., alcoves and courtyards). There was no evidence that

these elements had been intentionally designed to utilize

these patterns. Functional limitations – such as an excess

of parking spaces, low-quality pedestrian areas, and insuf-

cient accessibility for people with disabilities – further

diminish the opportunities for experiencing and using the

space in accordance with biophilic design principles.

The conducted study, while enabling the identication

of signicant biophilic gaps on the Central Campus of the

Warsaw University of Technology, has certain limitations

that should be considered when interpreting the results.

First, eld observations were carried out during the win-

ter season, which aected the perception of some biophilic

patterns, particularly those related to the seasonality of veg-

etation or variability in weather conditions. Repeating the

analysis in other seasons could reveal a dierent picture

of the intensity and distribution of the examined patterns.

While the study could be classied as a “winter study”, the

authors considered that conducting it at this time would not

fundamentally determine its overall outcomes.

Second, the evaluation forms were completed exclusive-

ly by the authors. Although this ensured consistency in the

applied criteria, it limited the objectivity of the results. Due

to the availability of literature sources, ndings from previ-

ous studies (Dosen, Ostwald 2016; Hami, Abdi 2019; Peters,

D’Penna 2020) were used as a reference for understanding

the perceptions and preferences of users

of the Central Cam-

pus. Additional data from current campus users could be

obtained through structured, two-stage workshops. In the

rst stage, participants would assess the space intuitively,

without prior knowledge, and in the second stage, follow-

ing a lecture component, they would evaluate the area again

equipped with the appropriate “tools”. This approach would

allow a comparison between innate sensitivity to nature and

the theoretical aspects of biophilia. Such a study could be

Fig. 5. Map of the Central Campus of the Warsaw University

of Technology with markings corresponding to the overall biophilic

quality assessment at the surveyed field points

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Il. 5. Mapa Kampusu Centralnego Politechniki Warszawskiej

z oznaczeniami odpowiadającymi sumarycznej ocenie

jakości biofilnej w badanych punktach węzłowych

(oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

62 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

General recommendations

1. Reorganization and rationalization of space.

It is recommended to relocate a signicant portion of

parking functions outside the campus to free up space for

the predominantly pedestrian trac within the study area.

Parking spaces that must remain on campus should not sig-

nicantly interfere with the green fabric. Solutions such

as permeable surfaces or integrating parking areas with

com pact high- and medium-height greenery as visual and

acoustic buers are suggested. New structures, however,

should not obstruct existing axial lines and sightlines (Pros-

pect, pattern 11). Reducing the share of car-related func-

tions in the campus layout will allow for a more ecient

organization of space that meets the needs of the academic

community. Recommendations in this area include creating

green, quiet spaces for relaxation and recreation, and areas

for direct contact with nature, such as campus communi-

ty gardens that integrate permanent campus residents with

other users, or outdoor recreational zones. Zoning function-

ally diverse spaces will provide users with a sense of Ref-

uge and impart a sense of Mystery to the environment (Ref-

uge and Mystery, patterns 12 and 13). This goal can also be

supported through the design of urban niches and interiors,

year-round pavilions, and thoughtfully arranged greenery.

2. Increasing year-round accessibility of spaces.

Recommended actions, considering the seasonal varia-

bility of weather conditions, include increasing the acces-

sibility of public spaces during colder periods, such as the

central square, forecourts, and urban interiors of selected

buildings. It is advisable to introduce solutions within the

campus layout such as permanent or seasonal canopies and

shelters, green windbreak structures, or local temporary

heating installations like radiant heaters. These structures

can also serve in warmer periods by providing localized

shading, thereby reducing air temperature (Thermal & Air-

ow Variability, pattern 4). Openwork elements will addi-

tionally enhance the visual appeal of the space, creating

dynamic patterns of light and shadow (Dynamic & Diuse

Light, pattern 6).

3. Increasing the presence and continuity of greenery.

Actions in this area should focus on increasing the pres-

ence of low-, medium-, and high-height vegetation. Par-

ticularly important for enhancing Visual Connection with

Nature (pattern 1) is the addition of new medium- and

high-height structures along publicly accessible pedestri-

an routes. To maintain the continuity of greenery, existing

tree rows should be supplemented, forming a network of

green landscape corridors that provide the site with bio-

philic cohesion. The proposed additional plantings would

consist of targeted, small-scale interventions that improve

the overall perception of the space without compromis-

ing usability or recreational opportunities, functioning as

a form of spatial “acupuncture”. Improving the condition of

low vegetation will activate users, increasing both the func-

tional and visual attractiveness of the space. Recommenda-

tions also include enhancing the biodiversity of plantings.

Seasonal vegetation in pedestrian zones will help ensure

a continuous visual presence of greenery throughout the

year (Connection with Natural Systems, pattern 7).

4. Introducing a diversity of sensory stimuli.

It is recommended to introduce elements on campus that

engage the senses–hearing, smell, and touch. Non-visual

connection with nature (pattern 2) can be achieved through

solutions that promote direct contact with natural ele

ments. Examples include sensory gardens, aromatic ow-

er meadows, or other low, multi-colored vegetation with

olfactory qualities, such as herbs, as well as freestanding

vertical gardens, green façades, and accessible green roofs.

The presence of water can be provided through fountains,

water curtains, or misting installations (Water, pattern 5).

A Material Connection with Nature (pattern 9) and sources

of Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli (pattern 3) can be cre-

ated through structures supporting small fauna – such as

bird feeders and insect hotels – as well as sensory path-

ways composed of diverse natural materials, such as gravel,

bark, or stones. When adding additional educational trails,

care should be taken to maintain smooth circulation while

enriching the space with features that improve areas exhib-

iting a low presence of biophilic elements. Local variations

in terrain, such as small bridges, embankments, or local-

ized depressions, can signicantly enhance the perception

of space and, combined with safe cues of Risk/Peril (pat-

tern 14), create an environment that stimulates cognitive

and physical engagement.

5. Implementation of biomorphic patterns and use of

natural materials.

It is recommended to use renewable and locally sourced

natural materials that complement the architectural expres-

sion of the existing campus buildings. Such materials in-

clude wood, stone, and brick (Material Connection with

Na ture, pattern 9). Existing Biomorphic Forms & Patterns

in the study area, particularly sculptural elements on build-

ing façades, should be regularly maintained and supple-

mented as needed (pattern 8). New design and material

structures should be visually coherent and consistent with

the spatial hierarchy of the existing campus. It is especial-

ly important to respect the original fabric by maintaining

the hierarchy of newly designed elements (Complexity &

Order, pattern 10).

6. Educating and engaging the academic community.

Educational activities aimed at deepening knowledge of

biophilia and the benecial eects of biophilic design on

human health and functional well-being constitute a par-

ticularly important element of strategies supporting the

welfare of the academic community. Increasing awareness

in this area can contribute to greater engagement in shaping

campus spaces and, in the long term, support the mental,

physical, and cognitive health of users. Recommended so -

lutions to achieve these goals include: organizing indepen-

dent workshops, seminars, and thematic meetings; inte-

grating biophilia into the curricula of individual faculties;

promoting the topic through semester projects and theses;

and developing and disseminating innovative educational

materials, such as multimedia games and applications with

experience-mapping systems, or participatory platforms.

7. Systematic monitoring of biophilic quality.

A key element of a long-term strategy to enhance the

biophilic quality of the Central Campus of the Warsaw

Uni versity of Technology is the systematic monitoring and

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology 63

assessment of current conditions. Regular evaluation of

the environment will enable the development and imple-

mentation of realistic management programs and support

eective design decisions. It is therefore recommended to

establish an interdisciplinary team responsible for man-

aging environmental quality in the context of biophilic

impact on campus, with tasks including the development

of reliable research tools, preparation of regular reports

with an updated list of recommendations, and implementa-

tion of pilot interventions along with studies of their social

impact. Currently, digital IoT sensors are being used on

campus for environmental monitoring (Koszewski et al.

2025). It is recommended to utilize such devices for col-

lecting and analyzing data, including parameters such as

air temperature and quality, wind direction and strength,

humidity, noise levels, and sunlight exposure.

Detailed recommendations

The detailed recommendations include a timeline for the

potential implementation of corrective actions. They refer

to spatially dened clusters of biophilic nodes, hereafter

referred to as areas (Fig. 6). This division was developed

based on an analysis of the campus’s spatial and circula-

tion conditions, combined with results collected during the

eld study. Using literature sources and on-site observa-

tions, an analysis of user spatial activity was conducted,

allowing the identication of zones with varying levels

of foot trac, including areas functioning as nodes and

circulation corridors (Koszewski et al. 2025). As a result,

Zone B was recognized as the area characterized by the

highest pedestrian trac intensity. This zone includes both

a square serving as a gathering space and two key transit

routes leading deeper into the campus. Zone A was recog-

nized as a high, though not the highest, pedestrian trac

area. This zone includes two entrances facing the external

circulation network and the main communication node of

the system. Additionally, a factor reinforcing the concen-

tration of movement within this area is the presence of the

most intensively used building, i.e., the Main Building.

Due to functional and spatial conditions, zones C, D, and E

were recognized as areas with a similar, moderate level of

pedestrian trac. The results of the analysis were used to

relate the conclusions drawn from the study to the intensity

of biophilic pattern impact.

The stages of implementing the recommended actions

are presented in Table 1.

The detailed recommendations for individual areas are

presented in Table 2. It should be emphasized, however, that

any interventions aimed at improving the biophilic quality

of the campus should be planned and implemented holisti-

cally, taking into account the complexity and interrelation-

ships of the site’s spatial and biological features. This article

does not constitute an execution-level design; its purpose

was solely to gather information on the existing presence

of biophilic design elements on the campus and to indicate

where deciencies require investment and which elements

can improve the situation.

Fig. 6. Map of the Central Campus of the Warsaw University

of Technology divided into areas: A – eastern area, B – central area,

C – north-eastern area, D – north-western area, E – southern area,

F – area not included in the study

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Il. 6. Mapa Kampusu Centralnego Politechniki Warszawskiej

z podziałem na obszary: A – obszar wschodni, B – obszar centralny,

C – obszar północno-wschodni, D – obszar północno-zachodni,

E – obszar południowy, F – obszar nieobjęty badaniem

(oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Timeline name Implementation time (years) Actions description

Quick 0–1

actions not requiring significant time

or financial investment

Medium-term 1–5

actions requiring a carefully planned implementation

but not involving significant intervention

Strategic +5

actions requiring a precise management plan

and significant financial investment

Permanent –

actions requiring continuous, systematic implementation

as part of ongoing operations

Table 1. Classification of remedial actions based on their implementation timeframe (elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Tabela 1. Klasyfikacja działań naprawczych ze względu na czas ich wdrażania (oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

64 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

Area name

Timeline name

Zone A

Eastern Area

Zone B

Central

Zone C

North-eastern Area

Zone D

North-western Area

Zone E

Southern Area

Quick

Supplementing tree rows

with dense; insulating green

structures; planting medium

– to tall-height greenery;

interventions of

a “spatial acupuncture” character.

Planting medium- to tall-height greenery;

installation of devices and elements such

as water misters, heaters, bird feeders; small

sensory installations, e.g., aromatic

flowerbeds; reactivation of the existing

fountain; reorganization and supplementation

of small architectural elements, including

benches, trash bins, and lighting.

Installation of devices and elements

such as water misters, heaters, bird

feeders; small-scale installations,

e.g., aromatic flowerbeds; sensory

installations.

Planting of tall and medium-high

vegetation; installation of elements

such as: water misters, heat emitters,

bird feeders; small sensory installations,

e.g., aromatic flowerbeds.

Supplementing tree alleys

with dense; insulating green

structures; interventions of

a “spatial acupuncture”

character.

Medium-term

Replacement of parts

of the Main Building courtyard

surfaces with green pavements.

Designation of small zones for recreation,

rest, and study; introduction of minor

freestanding structures, e.g., thematic

pavilions, acoustic sculptures, canopies

and shelters; localized replacement of

surfaces with sensory pavements;

arrangement of community gardens.

Introduction of small freestanding

structures, e.g., thematic pavilions,

acoustic sculptures, canopies

and shelters; introduction of flower

meadows or other plants

with aromatic and colorful qualities;

arrangement of community gardens.

Introduction of small freestanding

structures, e.g., thematic pavilions,

acoustic sculptures, canopies

and shelters; establishment of flower

meadows; arrangement

of community gardens.

–

Strategic

Reorganization of parking areas;

replacement of hard surfaces

with permeable pavements;

construction of freestanding

vertical gardens in the courtyards

of the Main Building.

–

Reorganization of parking areas;

replacement of hardened surfaces

with permeable pavements;

construction of green roofs

and façades.

Reorganization of parking areas;

replacement of hard surfaces

with permeable pavements; construction

of green roofs and green façades.

Reorganization of parking

areas; replacement of hard

surfaces with permeable

pavements; construction

of green roofs and façades;

replacement of artificial façade

materials with natural

and/or biomorphic ones.

Permanent Maintenance of existing biophilic elements; educational and promotional activities; monitoring and assessment of biophilic quality.

Table 2. Compilation of detailed recommendations for individual areas, including a timeline for their implementation

(elaborated by D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Tabela 2. Rekomendacje szczegółowe dla poszczególnych obszarów z uwzględnieniem schematu czasowego ich wdrażania

(oprac. D. Kumorek, P. Kiełb)

Biophilic solutions in higher education – an analysis of their presence on the Central Campus of the Warsaw University of Technology 65

Summary

The analysis of the presence and intensity of the 14 bio-

philic design patterns across the Central Campus of the

Warsaw University of Technology highlighted the varied

character of the space, revealing both its strengths and de-

ciencies. The assessment showed that the campus’s poten-

tial is not fully utilized – particularly in patterns related to

sensory diversity, multi-sensory interaction with nature,

and complexity and order. Several spatial and functional

barriers were also identied, such as excessive parking

areas, lack of material consistency, and limited accessibili-

ty for people with disabilities.

The results indicate the need for a comprehensive ap -

proach to campus planning in line with biophilic principles.

Future interventions should include reorganizing the trans-

Acknowledgement

The article was developed as part of the course program “Experimental

Research Project” conducted at the Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw Uni-

versity of Technology during the winter semester 2024/2025.

portation layout, enhancing the role of greenery and water

in public spaces, and implementing sensory, material, and

spatial elements that support feelings of shelter, mystery,

and discovery. Equally important is engaging the academ-

ic community in the transformation process through edu-

cational and participatory initiatives.

Overall, the Central Campus of the Warsaw University

of Technology possesses signicant biophilic potential,

but currently it is only partially realized. Further design

and research eorts could transform it into a model of

a modern academic environment that promotes well-be-

ing, where architectural space harmoniously integrates

with nature.

Translated by

Dominika Kumorek

References

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson,

Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. A Pattern Language: Towns,

Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, 1977.

Annerstedt, Matilda, and Peter Währborg. “Nature-Assisted Therapy:

Systematic Review of Controlled and Observational Studies.” Scan-

di navian Journal of Public Health 39, no. 4 (2011): 371–88. https://

doi.org/10.1177/1403494810396400.

Bowler, Diana E., Lisette Buyung-Ali, Teri Knight, and Andrew Pullin.

“A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Added Benets to Health

of Exposure to Natural Environments.” BMC Public Health 10, no.

456 (2010): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456.

Browning, William, Catherine Ryan, and Joseph Clancy. 14 Patterns of

Biophilic Design: Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built En -

vironment. Terrapin Bright Green, 2014.

Burton, Danielle. “Biophilic Design in Higher Education: Exploring Na -

ture-Based Design Inclusion in Classrooms.” Georgia Southern Uni-

versity, 2022. Honors College Theses. 734. Accessed August 14, 2025,

at https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/734/.

Cama, Rosalyn. Evidence-Based Healthcare Design. John Wiley and

Sons, 2009.

Determan, Jim, Mary Anne Akers, Tom Albright, et al. “The Impact of

Bio philic Learning Spaces on Student Success.” American Institute

of Ar chi tecture, Building Research Knowledgebase, 2019. Accessed

August 14, 2025, at https://cgdarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/

The-Impact-of-Biophilic-Learning-Spaces-on-Student-Success.pdf.

Dosen, Annemarie S., and Michael J. Ostwald. “Evidence for Prospect-

Refuge Theory: A Meta-Analysis of the Findings of Environmental

Preference Research.” City, Territory and Architecture 3, no. 4 (2016):

1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1.

Frumkin, Howard. “Beyond Toxicity: Human Health and the Natural

En vironment.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20, no. 3

(2001): 234–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00317-1.

Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, 1973.

Gillis, Kaitlyn, and Birgitta Gatersleben. “A Review of Psychological

Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benets of Biophilic

Design.” Buildings 5, no. 3 (2015): 948–63. https://doi.org/10.3390/

buildings5030948.

Hami, Ahmad, and Babak Abdi. “Students’ Landscaping Preferences for Open

Spaces for Their Campus Environment.” Indoor and Built En vi ron -

ment 30, no. 1 (2019): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1420326X19887207.

Heerwagen, Judith H., and Betty Hase. “Building Biophilia: Connecting

People to Nature in Building Design.” 2001. Accessed August 14,

2025, at https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/building- biophilia-

connecting-people-to-nature-in-building-design-pdf/273332207.

Kellert, Stephen R. The Value of Life. Island Press, 1997.

Kellert, Stephen R. “Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic

Design.” In Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of

Bringing Buildings to Life, edited by Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H.

Heerwagen, and Martin L. Mador. John Wiley and Sons, 2008.

Kellert, Stephen R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design.

Yale University Press, 2018.

Kellert, Stephen R., Judith H. Heerwagen, and Martin L. Mador, eds.

Bio philic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing

Build ings to Life. John Wiley and Sons, 2008.

Kellert, Stephen R., and Edward O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis.

Island Press, 1993.

Koszewski, Krzysztof, Robert Olszewski, Piotr Pałka, et al. “Utilizing

IoT Sensors and Spatial Data Mining for Analysis of Urban Space

Actors’ Behavior in University Campus Space Design.” Sensors 25,

no. 5 (2025): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25051393.

Mahrous, Amira, Khaled Dewidar, Mostafa Refaat, and Ashraf Nessim.

“Biophilia as a Sustainable Design Approach for University Build-

ings Design: A Case Study in University Campus Drawing Studios,

Cairo, Egypt.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and En vironmental

Science 1113, no. 1 (2022): 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-

1315/1113/1/012001.

Mahrous, Amira, Khaled Dewidar, Mostafa Refaat, and Ashraf Nessim. “The

Impact of Biophilic Attributes on University Students’ Level of Sa tis-

faction: Using Virtual Reality Stimulation.” Ain Shams En gineering

Jour nal 15, no. 17 (2023): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102304.

Marcus, Clare C., and Naomi Sachs. Therapeutic Landscapes: An Evi-

dence-Based Approach to Designing Healing Gardens and Resto ra-

tive Outdoor Spaces. John Wiley and Sons, 2014.

McCullough, Cynthia. Evidence-Based Design for Healthcare Facilities.

Sigma Theta Tau International, 2009.

66 Dominika Kumorek, Przemysław Kiełb

Olmsted, Frederick L. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted: The Ca li-

fornia Frontier, 1863–1865 (Volume 5). Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1990.

Peters, Terri, and Kristen D’Penna. “Biophilic Design for Restorative

University Learning Environments: A Critical Review of Literature

and Design Recommendations.” Sustainability 12, no. 17 (2020):

1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177064.

Shin, Jihye, and Mihyun Seol. “A Study on the Awareness of the Uni-

versity Students about the Biophilic City.” Journal of the Korean

Institute of Landscape Architecture 28, no. 4 (2020): 73–90. https://

doi.org/10.17279/jkagee.2020.28.4.73.

Ulrich, Roger S. “Aesthetic and Aective Response to Natural En vi ron-

ment.” In Behavior and the Natural Environment, edited by Irwin

Alt man and Joachim F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, 1983.

Ulrich, Roger S., Craig Zimring, Xuemei Zhu, et al. “A Review of the

Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design.” HERD 1,

no. 3 (2008): 61–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 193758670800100306.

Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, 1984.

Streszczenie

Rozwiązania biolne w szkolnictwie wyższym

– analiza występowania na Kampusie Centralnym Politechniki Warszawskiej

Przez tysiąclecia człowiek związany był z przyrodą. Postęp industrializacji znacznie wpłynął na ograniczenie tej łączności. Odpowiedzią na próbę

ponownego włączenia natury w codzienność społeczeństwa jest projektowanie biolne.

Celem autorów artykułu była ocena obecności i skali występowania wybranych wzorców biolnych na terenie Kampusu Centralnego Politechniki

Warszawskiej. Za metody badawcze przyjęto studia literaturowe, obserwację obszaru badań oraz analizę skali występowania 14 wzorców biolnych

w wybranych punktach terenowych. Dane w postaci ocen, przyporządkowanych każdemu punktowi, zebrano za pomocą formularza internetowego.

Wyniki badania przedstawiono w postaci map kampusu z oznaczeniami kolorystycznymi, odpowiadającymi zebranym ocenom. Artykuł wieńczą wnioski

w postaci rekomendacji dla kierunku rozwoju tego terenu, zgodnego z duchem biolii.

Słowa kluczowe: biolia, projektowanie, 14 wzorców, kampus, Politechnika Warszawska